Milton II EL v. Corrie et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/17/2017. (ail)
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
Tommie Lee Milton II EL, Plaintiff,
Sidney Corrie, Jr., and others,
Civil Action No. 16-62590-Civ-Scola
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
(Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 103). The decision to grant or deny a motion for
reconsideration is committed to the district court’s sound discretion. See
Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 2000) (reviewing
reconsideration decision for abuse of discretion). Reconsideration is
appropriate only in very limited circumstances, such as where “the Court has
patently misunderstood a party, where there is an intervening change in
controlling law or the facts of a case, or where there is manifest injustice.” See
Vila v. Padron, No. 04-20520, 2005 WL 6104075, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31,
2005) (Altonaga, J.). “Such problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider
should be equally rare.” See id. (citation omitted). In order to obtain
reconsideration, “the party must do more than simply restate its previous
arguments, and any arguments the party failed to raise in the earlier motion
will be deemed waived.” See id.
The Plaintiff’s motion merely restates his previous arguments and does
not demonstrate that the Court misunderstood him, does not allege an
intervening change in controlling law or the facts of the case, and does not
demonstrate that there was a manifest injustice. Therefore, the Plaintiff has not
established that grounds exist for the Court to reconsider its decision to
dismiss this case. However, the Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Order at 6, ECF No. 101). The Plaintiff is
correct that the Court should have dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.
Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232
(11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) (“A dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and is entered without prejudice.”).
Therefore, the Court will issue an Amended Order correcting this error. The
Court notes, though, that the Plaintiff has not established that grounds exist
for the Court to reconsider its finding that “The factual allegations concerning
the violations of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights are so bereft of substance
that any attempt at amendment would be futile.” (Order at 6, ECF No. 101.)
Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 103).
Done and Ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on May 17, 2017.
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
Tommie Lee Milton II El
18331 Pines Boulevard #240
Pembroke Pines, FL 33029
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?